Reduced areas in reed switches are noted in such patents as Scheepstra et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,258,557, Gomperts et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,218,406, DeFalco U.S. Pat. No. 3,283,274 and Bianco et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,059,074. Such flattened portions have been devised to aid in making the reed elements flexible as mentioned in DeFalco or to provide a limited pivot for an armature as illustrated in Gomperts et al. Gomperts in general provided a thin or flat piece of resilient metal attached to the armature and attached to the reed. This particular patent suggests a "scheme" from which the spring and reed could be made from one piece but it does not include the armature. Scheepstra et al. teaches the flattening of the reed to 0.15 mil. by pressure in order to obtain additional flexibility to his reeds. In general, however, the prior art failed to achieve any major reduction in size in reed switches. DeFalco and Van Wagener et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,247,343 developed reed switches in which the reeds were mounted in the envelope at one end thereof only; however, no major decrease in length was accomplished by either of these developments. The smallest reed switch available today has reeds extending from either end of the envelope.
For many years, reed switch manufacturers have been attempting to reduce the size while increasing the load carrying capacity of the reed switches, but with little success.